Jump to content

College Football Has Its Largest Attendance Drop in 34 Years


Mean Green 93-98

Recommended Posts

Quote

Attendance among the 129 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams in 2017 was down an average of 1,409 fans per game from 2016. That marked the largest drop since 1983...

The 2017 FBS average of 42,203 fans per game is the lowest since 1997.  

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-heads-in-wrong-direction-with-largest-attendance-drop-in-34-years/

  • Lovely Take 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jdennis82 said:

In the end, though, the real problem is the length of games.  Making a four hour (or more) commitment is a huge hurdle to many as they decide whether to head to the game or spend their time elsewhere.

I don't think so.  Considering that most people are committing at least a couple additional hours for travel, tailgating, etc., I'd say an extra 15-30 minutes of football won't stop too many from attending.  If anything, it makes the time investment in their travel more worthwhile.  And the kind of pass-heavy offenses that lead to longer games tends to more entertaining for most spectators.

That said, the slow death of television timeouts is an absolute momentum killer and makes attending college football games noticeably less entertaining than they otherwise would be.

Your comments about media markets and TV dollars are right on the money.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never been a time watcher at athletic events.  However, since I started following FC Dallas and the premier league, the fact that I can squeeze a 1:50 minute drop by the pub to watch a game midweek is sweet. The intensity of a game in a 2 hour block start to finish works. 4 hour college football games don’t bother me.  4 hour any other sport games wear me down.  Insert baseball, hockey and especially the nfl. So over that league.

GMG

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Don't forget to blame a part of it on the personal vehicle traffic. Just so many cars on the roads these days makes it hard to justify the suffering vs. watching on TV. Plus beers are cheaper at bars.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 100% TV being issue number 1. Schools have fallen to their knees to the mercy of the almighty TV dollar. Therefore, TV dictates horrible start times such as noon September kickoffs and awkward TV timeouts. Schools have lost their say and the fans are kind of fed up with it. 

A close 2nd is price. Not just gate price, but parking, tailgating, gas, hotel stay, etc. Then of course the terribly inflated prices of anything and everything inside stadiums. This doesn't quite apply to us here at UNT as far as parking and gate prices. 

Fix those, like really fix those, and attendance will spike. But administrations keep going to the excuse of "fan experience." That is not the problem, but fixing the real problems puts hands in their cookie jar and that exact greed is kind of why they're bleeding fans. 

Edited by Ben Gooding
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's 100% TV being issue number 1. Schools have fallen to their knees to the mercy of the almighty TV dollar. Therefore, TV dictates horrible start times such as noon September kickoffs and awkward TV timeouts. Schools have lost their say and the fans are kind of fed up with it. 

A close 2nd is price. Not just gate price, but parking, tailgating, gas, hotel stay, etc. Then of course the terribly inflated prices of anything and everything inside stadiums. This doesn't quite apply to us here at UNT as far as parking and gate prices. 

Fix those, like really fix those, and attendance will spike. But administrations keep going to the excuse of "fan experience." That is not the problem, but fixing the real problems puts hands in their cookie jar and that exact greed is kind of why they're bleeding fans. 

As far as price, at the P5s, people complain and give away their tickets for non-conference matchups with FCS spares or bodybag games.

The other variable that needs to be factored in is that millennials just don’t like sports the way previous generations do. That will have an affect on everything. Football is the sport that is most susceptible to this change in interest.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero knowledge of what the zeitgeist is among present day students, but I can definitely compare today's environment to that when I was a college age student in the early nineties.  

The entire purpose that we went to games when we were in college was that going to games was one of a menu of excuses to drink a shitload of beer -- most of us doing so underage. 

Today, I see the police escorting out students, sometimes en masse, for underage consumption.  

I can't argue with the police; it's a different era with greater liabilities in an ever increasing litigious world.

But I can't argue with the students either.  Just as we avoided bars where we knew the bouncers were incredibly strict, so would we have avoided football games where we'd seen cops carting students off. 

But maybe the whole excuse to drink beer thing isn't important to current students either.  Maybe it really is that the couch and television is easier and more comfortable. I truly don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I don't think so.  Considering that most people are committing at least a couple additional hours for travel, tailgating, etc., I'd say an extra 15-30 minutes of football won't stop too many from attending.  If anything, it makes the time investment in their travel more worthwhile.  And the kind of pass-heavy offenses that lead to longer games tends to more entertaining for most spectators.

That said, the slow death of television timeouts is an absolute momentum killer and makes attending college football games noticeably less entertaining than they otherwise would be.

Your comments about media markets and TV dollars are right on the money.

Yeah I hate the (Redman (do not think Indian, think TV, RADIO time out guy) seems like he is always on the field stopping the game.

Edited by southsideguy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Really? Do you have any evidence of this? 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/25/illegal-streams-live-sports-sports-industry-group

This isn't the only article I can find, but it pretty much represents the reality that millennials don't like the traditional sports the way previous generations did. Injuries, time, attention, cost, etc...they all factor in as reasons that football doesn't appeal to this generation.

Edited by untjim1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/25/illegal-streams-live-sports-sports-industry-group

This isn't the only article I can find, but it pretty much represents the reality that millennials don't like the traditional sports the way previous generations did. Injuries, time, attention, cost, etc...they all factor in as reasons that football doesn't appeal to this generation.

Mostly it says that they stream sports online and more frequently illegally with more of that attributed to 18-24 year olds. Oddly, the younger people with less money don't have subscription TV services. 

It is a footnote at the bottom that fewer say they follow sports or follow sports that are not the same sports that you do. It says nothing about injuries or time or any reasoning about why that may be. 

Given how little is said about survey methodology, where the 1,500 people surveyed were from, and some of the exact questions from the survey, I have doubts about the validity of the data. If this is a global study, the higher percent that don't follow sports could be cultural for the part of the world they are from. The other issue here is that it is obviously not a representative sample given that ~1,000 of the 1,500 were "millennials" (that the article does a poor job of defining and using consistently). There are some serious issues with the data presented and how the article treats it.

I would call it an interesting directional article, but nothing conclusive was discovered as part of the study and the article doesn't call any of that into question or seek to look critically at the findings.

Edited by forevereagle
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.